JFK Researchers and the Murdoch Investigation

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/hoar-j23.shtml

British media quick to dismiss death in Murdoch phone hacking case

Some interesting perspective in this article.

[Greg Parker]

Mike,

unlike you, I grew up with the Murdoch Press.

What they omitted was that he was recently looking much better than he had - something that I read in a number of other reports.

Greg, who or what you grew up with is irrelevant. Your posts keep straying far away from what started our back and forth. I could care less

about any minor content differences between The Guardian and The Australian.

Mike,

Omission of statements that buck the rest of the report is only "fair and balanced" in the world that Murdoch inhabits. It is not a "minor" issue, imo.

I often post links to news articles. That does not constitute an endorsement. If I think an article is spot on, I'll say something.

In this case I posted a link to an article that discussed, among other things, Hoare's and cocaine use and questionable health.

I only statement I added was this: "And as with the JFK assassination, it's going to prove difficult to sort fact from fiction."

I did that to tie into the theme of John Simkin's thread thread JFK Researchers and the Murdoch Investigation. I was also replying to

something John said in his post.

Your reply was: "In this case, I don't think it's too hard. The Australian is owned by News Corp...."

I pointed out who owned so you could evaluate it in that light.

I took that to mean that something in Ralph's article was ficitive. Presumably reports of his drug use or general health, since that is what I excerpted.

Just to be sure, I simply asked you: So the article is fictitious?

Your reply was flippant, sarcastic, dismissive and non-responsive as far as I am concerned: "No. The article is 'fair & balanced'. In the usual News Corp fashion."

It may have been the first two. It wasn't the latter. What constitutes "fair and balanced" in the Murdoch empire is at the heart of the problem with the report.

Greg, you've been around the block enough that you don't evaluate news by the major outlet it appears in. You evaluate it by the reporter, his or her perceived credibillty,

and the sources of the author's information. You approach everything that makes the news with an extremely sceptical view. You weigh it against other sources and your own

points of view.

Would you have said the same thing, say about TASS? Same principle applies. This is just the corporate version.

In this case, the fact that The Australian reporter got his information from The Guardian reporter's story negates any insinuation that it was only published because it was

favorable to Murdoch, and that it veracity was therefore questionable, or whatever it was you were trying to say. I'm still not exactly sure.

It was a one-sided propaganda piece designed to ensure everyone got the message: he was self-destructive and unstable.

In a fast breaking blockbuster story like this one, and with a sudden death of a key participant, reporters hurry and strain to get a story out there. Usually they base

their stories on what is already in the public domain with any and all personal sources they may be able to summon. It is unrealistic to expect all of these stories to

mesh or be fair and balanced to your personal satisfaction in every instance.

Show me ONE instance of any Murdoch media NOT bashing this dead whistle-blower.

It was good that you pointed out The Australian is owned by Murdoch; that may have bearing on the slant of the article.

You think, Mike? Don't be too hasty in that judgement now. Remember - it;s me that's pushing that line.

But that fact has no bearing on whether or not

Hoare had a massive cocaine habit or his healthy was dodgy. True or false, that's major news.

Yes. I never said it wasn't.

The notion that a neighbor saw Hoare after he went for a physical and, apparently without speaking to him, told someone: "Then I saw him again and he seemed well."

Greg, that isn't major news. You may hold a different opinion.

That person was named, Mike. That's the difference. None of the neighbors with negative comments apparently had a name. And yes. I do believe if you report one or more anonymous sources that Mr X was a shambolic, drug-addled mess in the days before he died, you have a RESPONSIBILITY to report some one willing to be named as saying he looked well just before his death. I mean, I know that's not as sexy... (and in the case of the Murdoch Press - not sending the "right" message) but hey, that's life (and death!)

[John Simkin]

http://news.yahoo.com/james-murdoch-doomed-phone-hackings-continued-fallout-164801582.html

It looks like James Murdoch is in a bit of trouble.

Like lying under oath.

At the committee hearing on Tuesday, Labour's Tom Watson asked James Murdoch: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville (Thurlbeck) email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?" Mr Murdoch replied: "No, I was not aware of that at the time". He had to say this otherwise he would have been guilty of paying money to cover-up a crime.

Last night, two senior executives at News International, Colin Myler (editor at the News of the World) and Tom Crone (head of the legal department), issued a statement said: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS select committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken." In other words, he lied.

Tom Watson told the BBC: "This is the most significant moment of two years of investigation into phone hacking. If [Colin Myler and Tom Crone's] statement is accurate it shows James Murdoch had knowledge that others were involved in hacking as early as 2008, it shows he failed to act to discipline staff or initiate an internal investigation, which undermines Rupert Murdoch's evidence to our committee that the company had a zero tolerance to wrongdoing... More importantly it shows he not only failed to report a crime to the police but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement it means that he bought the silence of [chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association] Gordon Taylor and that could mean he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice."